CSL Side London City Soccer Club SOLD to Hamilton-based owner

[Redcoatsforever]

http://londoncity.ca/

London City Soccer Club, a fixture in professional soccer in the Canadian Soccer League since 1973 and the longest uninterrupted professional soccer club in North America, has been sold to out-of-town interests.

Ryan Gauss, the club’s CEO and General Manager, has announced the takeover by a group headed by Hamilton entrepreneur Andrew Crowe, successful in the environmental recycling business. The team will remain in London.

Hopefully this is actually good for the club, and a more professional atmosphere will emerge. Maybe they'll even move to TD Waterhouse instead of playing at a freaking swamp?

Also, at the end of the article:

London City is one of nine equity owners of the CSL, which in 2010 had 17 clubs in membership fielding 24 teams in two divisions. The Canadian Soccer League, with offices at Mississauga, Ontario, is now in direct membership with the national governing soccer body CSA and aims to be a level two professional soccer league playing on a regional basis across Canada.

So the CSL are still talking about nationwide expansion. Not bad.

[DigzTFC]

Any idea what became of the equity strategy to encourage expansion?

http://22066.vws.magma.ca/reports11/11csl010.htm

Deep down, the league wants to erase as quickly as possible any perception of a difference between its members that consists on one hand of league owners - member teams which collectively have invested millions of dollars since the 70s to establish the CSL as Canada’s only professional league - and recent teams in membership as playing members without equity ownership.

The league is introducing a change in its structure to achieve an environment which brings the business side of the CSL more in line with the game – the competition, where all teams are the same, all on a level playing field. The formation of an incorporated body, CSL Association Inc. developed during 2010, is complete now so that expressions such as ‘equity owners’, ‘non-equity owners’ or ‘playing members’ will soon be terminology from the past..

CSL League Administrator Pino Jazbec, a proponent of a change that brings equalization to the status of teams, sees the new company as a step in the right direction. “It’s a very painless way over a long period of time to compensate those clubs who poured money into the CSL over the years and who presently own the league. In time, it will be everyone’s league” he said, referring to the question of league ownership.

[Redcoatsforever]

Any idea what became of the equity strategy to encourage expansion?

http://22066.vws.magma.ca/reports11/11csl010.htm

Deep down, the league wants to erase as quickly as possible any perception of a difference between its members that consists on one hand of league owners - member teams which collectively have invested millions of dollars since the 70s to establish the CSL as Canada’s only professional league - and recent teams in membership as playing members without equity ownership.

The league is introducing a change in its structure to achieve an environment which brings the business side of the CSL more in line with the game – the competition, where all teams are the same, all on a level playing field. The formation of an incorporated body, CSL Association Inc. developed during 2010, is complete now so that expressions such as ‘equity owners’, ‘non-equity owners’ or ‘playing members’ will soon be terminology from the past..

CSL League Administrator Pino Jazbec, a proponent of a change that brings equalization to the status of teams, sees the new company as a step in the right direction. “It’s a very painless way over a long period of time to compensate those clubs who poured money into the CSL over the years and who presently own the league. In time, it will be everyone’s league” he said, referring to the question of league ownership.

I think the answer lies in that last bit of quoting from Pino Jazbec, in which he states that the equalization process is a lengthy one. My guess would be that this is to appease the equity owners/original CSL investors who took on larger risk and larger investment, while still eliminating a system that creates two classes of ownership.

[Juby]

I think the answer lies in that last bit of quoting from Pino Jazbec, in which he states that the equalization process is a lengthy one. My guess would be that this is to appease the equity owners/original CSL investors who took on larger risk and larger investment, while still eliminating a system that creates two classes of ownership.

I remember there was a big CSL franchise fee debate a while ago and how a lot of people thought it was over priced (at a guessed $150 000? IIRC), this might be a factor in that price. I don't really want to get into the whole arguement again because were not talking on pitch value here but if you can bypass their grievances of millions of dollars with 150 000 - 200 000$ it doesnt seem too terrible or anything.

And their letting the little guy compete, their just not handing league ownership over for the ?25 000? non equity fee so I kinda think they might be getting close to a good sustainable model, maybe they should introduce a reward system (5, 8 or 10 years of successful operation could result in being granted an equity member?).

tbh, I think their doing us all a bit of a favour by letting people compete at that level before they have a lot of safety cash and I think its completely understandable that their not rushing to give away their interests for $20 000. Wouldn't it be rather silly if a group decently backed, stable teams were suddenly a minority power in their own league to a bunch of new teams (some possibly green) who couldn't afford the franchise fee? Would it really be wise of them to hand over the reigns of their league to new teams that can pony up $20 000? I don't doubt some are already qualified, and most will eventually be experienced owners and quality league members but I think it should be a slow process, being too generous (ie giving away ownership to more teams than equity owners at once) could literally be like a complete change in ownership so I think they should just slowly reward qualified members so you can get peoples feet wet without too much tumult.

edit: sorry, on topic, from the little info we have it does look like a fairly stable change, London City might actually be in need of a bit of a shakeup (although you had a good run at the end of last year)

[coppercanuck]

http://www.londoncommunitynews.com/2011/12/london-city-soccer-sold-will-stay-in-london/

http://www.lfpress.com/sports/soccer/2011/12/06/19073751.html

http://www.metronews.ca/london/local/article/1043030--london-city-soccer-club-sold

Some local news coverage

Always good to support local news who support local football.

[dmont]

.

This is good for London City. I don't know much about the London soccer scene, but I met Ryan Gauss a few times while he was going to school at Western. What a tool.

[Redcoatsforever]

.

This is good for London City. I don't know much about the London soccer scene, but I met Ryan Gauss a few times while he was going to school at Western. What a tool.

I don't think he did the best job managing the club, but I don't really see any reason to go with the personal attacks. Hopefully, this improves the club and we get a semi-pro team that actually attracts the top players in the area out of it. Currently most of them are with AEK and Middlesex...

[dobar dan]

maybe not so good for the Hamilton guy that just purchased the London

http://www.canadiansoccernews.com/content.php?2519-CSL-not-meeting-D3-standards-Audit

[ted]

As negative as I often sound about the CSL I don't see this as a big deal. Either they will meet the criteria or they will be designated a D4 league. I am not sure that there is enough difference between the two to make a noticeable difference to the on-field product.

[dobar dan]

The big negative is that the CSA will not sanction a D4 league, therefore they will not be a sanctioned organization or they go back to the OSA for sanctioning which I doubt will happen as there is a new group looking for D3 sanctioning and that application has been approved, (correct me if I'm wrong on that point of approval as I'm not 100% sure)

Losing CSA sanctioning also removes the CSL opportunity to go National and take the league across Canada and most likely have implications with QUE. based teams, so it could be a big deal.

[Juby]

The big negative is that the CSA will not sanction a D4 league, therefore they will not be a sanctioned organization or they go back to the OSA for sanctioning which I doubt will happen as there is a new group looking for D3 sanctioning and that application has been approved, (correct me if I'm wrong on that point of approval as I'm not 100% sure)

Losing CSA sanctioning also removes the CSL opportunity to go National and take the league across Canada and most likely have implications with QUE. based teams, so it could be a big deal.

I don't think it will be such a big deal, realistically their going to continue operations this year anyway (despite any sort of D point, it will happen, think about NASL which doesn't quite meet it's USSF standards league wide), and they could potentially start bringing themselves up to standard for this season to salvage everything, and then finally your ignoring that even failing that, they could get their D-3 status back next year.

It's not a good report by any means but I don't think their by any means on the precipice nor have any opportunities been removed (unless they were planning on going national this year). Next year is when this could really bite them in the ass, if they fail to improve their standards, and the new leagues take strides, then they will be in some hot water.

[ted]

Losing CSA sanctioning also removes the CSL opportunity to go National and take the league across Canada and most likely have implications with QUE. based teams, so it could be a big deal.

Actually by definition a D4 league is regional. By reclassifying they would be recognizing what the CSL has always been: a regional league. Once that is made clear the way is clear to start working on a realistic plan for a D3 system in Canada.

[VPjr]

Actually by definition a D4 league is regional. By reclassifying they would be recognizing what the CSL has always been: a regional league. Once that is made clear the way is clear to start working on a realistic plan for a D3 system in Canada.

I don't want to get into a big debate about this but, believe me, there is no "D4". After D3 (semi-pro), there is senior amateur.

A D3 League can be:

- National D3 (sanctioned by CSA, but only if your league has members in more than 1 province, as is the case with the CSL) or

- Provincial D3 (santioned by a Provincial association, as is the case in Quebec and what is being worked toward in Ontario).

The CSA's semi-pro standards apply to all D3 leagues, regardless of whether the league is sanctioned by the CSA or a provincial association.

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

.

This is good for London City. I don't know much about the London soccer scene, but I met Ryan Gauss a few times while he was going to school at Western. What a tool.

Think that last bit was uncalled for. I never got the impression that the younger Gauss generation were as into soccer as the two older ones so this was always on the cards. Only surprise has been that it has taken this long. As for City having a future, the only reason they have lasted as long as they did was because of the passion that the Gauss family has always had for soccer. Looks to me like Ryan decided to grab some cash for the equity in the CSL while he still could and that London won't necessarily be as central to the plans of a Hamilton based investor as it would be for a family for whom life very much revolved around London's German Club.

[Juby]

Think that last bit was uncalled for. I never got the impression that the younger Gauss generation were as into soccer as the two older ones so this was always on the cards. Only surprise has been that it has taken this long. As for City having a future, the only reason they have lasted as long as they did was because of the passion that the Gauss family has always had for soccer. Looks to me like Ryan decided to grab some cash for the equity in the CSL while he still could and that London won't necessarily be as central to the plans of a Hamilton based investor as it would be for a family for whom life very much revolved around London's German Club.

heh, old habits die hard eh? In this case I find it ironic you'll come to a person's aid and then try and sneak in a dig at the CSL?

[BringBackTheBlizzard]

I don't want to get into a big debate about this but, believe me, there is no "D4". After D3 (semi-pro), there is senior amateur.

I suspect the confusion on that is related to the USSF's sanctioning policies and the fact that Canadian teams are involved in that context. Interesting to see that the main issue on sanctioning was player's salaries:

The CSL will have to come before the committee again in mid-January with a plan to bring the remaining teams up to standard - the most glaring of which, CSN was told, was the lack of compliance on player's salaries.

The CSL and its post mid-80s NSL forerunners have always talked a good game about being "pro" but if you are drawing fewer than 100 paying spectators corners inevitably have to be cut in the absence of a rich investor who is willing to pump in tens of thousands of dollars every season. In the past the OSA has turned a blind eye to that sort of thing because having some sort of "pro" league was probably seen as being better than having no league at all. What's interesting is that the CSA appear to be actively enforcing their sanctioning standards. Maybe the perception is that with three D1 level teams in MLS and with soccer very much on the upswing again in terms of interest from investors and broadcasters as it was back in the original NASL era, reality can finally match rhetoric at the D3 level in more of a late 1970s NSL sort of way? It will be interesting to see what unfolds over the next few months.

[Juby]

I suspect the confusion on that is related to the USSF's sanctioning policies and the fact that Canadian teams are involved in that context. Interesting to see that the main issue on sanctioning was player's salaries:

The CSL will have to come before the committee again in mid-January with a plan to bring the remaining teams up to standard - the most glaring of which, CSN was told, was the lack of compliance on player's salaries.

The CSL and its post mid-80s NSL forerunners have always talked a good game about being "pro" but if you are drawing fewer than 100 paying spectators corners inevitably have to be cut in the absence of a rich investor who is willing to pump in tens of thousands of dollars every season. In the past the OSA has turned a blind eye to that sort of thing because having some sort of "pro" league was probably seen as being better than having no league at all. What's interesting is that the CSA appear to be actively enforcing their sanctioning standards. Maybe the perception is that with three D1 level teams in MLS and with soccer very much on the upswing again in terms of interest from investors and broadcasters as it was back in the original NASL era, reality can finally match rhetoric at the D3 level in more of a late 1970s NSL sort of way? It will be interesting to see what unfolds over the next few months.

You don't have to be dishonest, for example here, you are trying to make CSL squads look poorly by pretending it's simply a matter of owners cash vs gate income. But we all know youth programs are many teams main source of income, not gate, so why are you trying to mislead people? Either your being completely dishonest or you just proved you have no idea about what your talking about. Which is it and why is this behaviour acceptable from someone your age?

Which leads me to my usual point, since you have a history of either foolishness, lieing or downright misleading people with poor to false information (or taking normal info and just trying to mix it with made up crap). Can you source anything in this paranoid stack of cards you call an arguement? Can you prove any of your back in my day ranting here?

Your shifting blame for a 10 year old league over decades, varying league and administrative groups!? By the way, you realize harkening back to the late 70's means very little to a lot of people, and makes no sense from a development point of view, the entire world of soccer has changed. Your argument doesn't magically stop being full of crap if you mention enough old leagues and irrelevant decades. Stop wasting your life trying to blame the CSL for the current infrastructure gap that existed PRIOR to the league! Because it's more the fault of people like you, who are doing nothing but ruining others reputations because their not pro, then it is of the CSL, they help keep a semi pro level then dropping to amateur.

What exactly have you done these decades besides lie to try and ruin certain teams and leagues (anything positive?)? You just like to portray the CSL as 'not pro' rather then 'better then amateur' because it's the only way you can pretend our most successful lower level is somehow failing, by holding a semi pro league to a pro standard. Worst of all, your solution, is PDL clubs, which have their own set of problems and are further from being pro, why don't you show how their not pro as well? (that is why you don't mention them here, because your opinions are completely inconsistent, for attention?). And you can portray the CSL as dishonestly as you want, your just proving their important enough to warrant crazy people like you to be completely obsessed and go to extreme means (like flat out lieing) just to keep on talking about them! nobody obsesses over nobodies!

So in summation, BBTB proved in that last post he has no idea what he's talking about, but he's sure the sky is falling. It's like he's incapable of balanced commentary? Will he break out in hives if he doesn't exaggerate or have an extreme stance?

[Juby]

Seriously, everyone here knows (including bbtb) team income comes from gate, concessions, sponsors and in the CSL's case, most importantly youth programs (500 - 1000$ per kid for half a year!). But he consistently goes around lieing to pretend that the CSL is in dire straights because of the gate tallies? At what point does this become slander? Is someone purposely going around trying to spread false information acceptable? Is it okay to ignore 3 of 4 variable to dishonestly slander? Is it okay to repeat the same foolish point in every thread even close to the topic? He's a troll wasting everyone's time, repeating nonsense arguments to smear people who are actually productive, how long should we just ignore him as he tries to dishonestly ruin the reputations of people who are actually contributing? (when he goes after 5% of useful people's rep's? when he goes after 10%? 20%? How long do we tolerate his brand of slander for attention? Do we literally have to wait until someone goes out of business until we realize, crazy, dishonest, slander isn't something you just ignore.)

Would it be acceptable for me to act like ANY BUSINESS is doomed if I was only factoring a couple of a half dozen financial inputs? If I went around for example saying your store was a mess because you couldn't sell one of a half dozen products, wouldn't that be slander?

[ted]

OK, I'll bite.

BBtB, IMO makes a reasonable point Juby. It looks to me like you are arguing that "drawing fewer than 100 paying spectators" is sustainable for a professional soccer club. This I cannot agree with. It matters not one whit what other revenue streams are available, you cannot operate a pro soccer club in Canada with that level of attendance.

And, for the record, suggesting that a league is not appropriately sanctioned is not the same thing as saying it is "doomed".

Suggesting that a league needs to make improvements to its operations to keep its current sanctioning is not the same thing as saying it is "doomed".

Neither opinion rises anywhere near the level required for slander.

[Juby]

OK, I'll bite.

BBtB, IMO makes a reasonable point Juby. It looks to me like you are arguing that "drawing fewer than 100 paying spectators" is sustainable for a professional soccer club. This I cannot agree with. It matters not one whit what other revenue streams are available, you cannot operate a pro soccer club in Canada with that level of attendance.

And, for the record, suggesting that a league is not appropriately sanctioned is not the same thing as saying it is "doomed".

Suggesting that a league needs to make improvements to its operations to keep its current sanctioning is not the same thing as saying it is "doomed".

Neither opinion rises anywhere near the level required for slander.

Well I can say a couple things: A CSL budget is around 100 000 - 150 000$. Granted one input is low (for some clubs) and obviously concessions would be affected (25 000 on the low end? combined, annually). Now here's what I have to point out: Good youth programs run by clubs can cost 500 - 1000$ for part of the year, some programs have a lot of kids... a program of 100 kids, for 1 000 a year (higher figure because you can end up paying for each 'part' of the year) is a 100 000$ with not a whole lot of cost (coaches, venue, both of which are already in the expenditure figure, more coaches costs more, but can expand the program (if theirs demand)). Then of course sponsors. Realistically, even a team doing poorly should be breaking even if they put enough hard work into it (youth programs, getting sponsors).

The teams that bring in a decent number of fans or the teams with the big youth programs or teams that really galvinize sponsors can often be decently profitable despite one supposed failing because the budgets aren't terribly high for the results.

Their probably are a few cases of teams being 'backed' by the owner in that sense, but that's true in any league, it's probably a sign that they need to improve their abilities/clout/programs on their club's business end then their being any real problem with the model.

The fact is he's taking a pretty stable league, and saying it's going broke just to cause problems, even though it's factually untrue, he's trying to point at the worst attended teams to 'prove' what is untrue. The math makes it pretty obvious, he's seen this math, but he likes to act like the bottom line is solely dependent on gate? If he had proof, he'd be researching correctly to try and find the real figures, not simplifying things.

BTW, the slander comes from having seen him make this same untrue argument (that he knows is untrue) dozens of times to slander the CSL and their clubs as unprofitable (when it's actually just about the best deal around), the difference is mine is 'angry and true' insults, and his fits slander more properly by being completely untrue. He is just trying to dumb down the entire debate because he'd rather trick a casual glancer to dislike the CSL then reach the facts he's ignoring, and the only reason he 'hates' the CSL is because of petty board arguements (go back two or three years and he'll be using all the acronyms and decades in completely different (often opposite) arguements).

For the sanctioning, I can only say, every indication I have has the league going ahead this year. I haven't seen or heard anything that would imply the CSA is going to leave the CSL completely stranded this season (it'd be like shooting yourself in the foot). The most likely scenario (call me full of it if you want): (as I kinda mentioned earlier) promises will be made, initiatives will be started, the season will go ahead, and expect numerous audits with either success or consequences for the following season. I haven't gotten the slightest impression from anyone that their are any drastic consequences coming for this season (barring the CSL ignoring the audit, which isn't even a real possibility). The idea that like 15 clubs and their players and staff are going to be left without a paddle this short before the season just isn't realistic.

[ted]

I totally concur with your predictions for 2012. I cannot see the CSA revoking their status. I actually assume that the whole exercise was a "wake up call" to try and achieve some reforms within some of the clubs and/or the league.

[1996]

I'm responding on experience having been involved with the CSL as a very minority owner for a few years back in the late 90's and early 2000's . I got out of the league when the majority owner of our team was made an offer that was too good to turn down, an incredible offer from someone to buy the team. It did not take too long to make up our minds to sale the team, we could not believe that someone would want to buy the team so badly that they would offer what they did. Therefore, the team was sold and even as a small minority owner I made a nice little return on my investment in the team. However, the point I want to make is that at the time and even to this day observing this league from afar there still seems to be a few owners in this league that either don't have the money to improve their teams or are just not willing to improve their teams, because it seems that the same two teams that were always at the bottom of the league back in the days when I was involved are the same two teams that are still at the bottom today, one is this team that was just sold and the other is the one that plays at the corner of Bathurst and Finch, every year these same two teams find themselves at the bottom. For this league to move forward you need owners that have the capabilities and desire to want to improve and grow, not owners that are in it to try to make some extra income for themselves with no means of being able to improve their teams and improve the league in general.

[Juby]

I'm responding on experience having been involved with the CSL as a very minority owner for a few years back in the late 90's and early 2000's . I got out of the league when the majority owner of our team was made an offer that was too good to turn down, an incredible offer from someone to buy the team. It did not take too long to make up our minds to sale the team, we could not believe that someone would want to buy the team so badly that they would offer what they did. Therefore, the team was sold and even as a small minority owner I made a nice little return on my investment in the team. However, the point I want to make is that at the time and even to this day observing this league from afar there still seems to be a few owners in this league that either don't have the money to improve their teams or are just not willing to improve their teams, because it seems that the same two teams that were always at the bottom of the league back in the days when I was involved are the same two teams that are still at the bottom today, one is this team that was just sold and the other is the one that plays at the corner of Bathurst and Finch, every year these same two teams find themselves at the bottom. For this league to move forward you need owners that have the capabilities and desire to want to improve and grow, not owners that are in it to try to make some extra income for themselves with no means of being able to improve their teams and improve the league in general.

I don't want to bean argumentative wanker but theirs a couple problems in your post:

-The North York Astro's (talking that way about people and teams is not a defense for liability, it's a way to joke...) you mention as one of the terrible teams actually had a strong few years directly between the two time periods you mention...

-Name a league where you won't find a few owners who aren't as successful at business, or the odd person who's either greedy or cheap? (these guys exist in every league, a couple is actually...normal)

-Financial stability is extremely important (you don't want to go broke taking too many risks) so it's well and good to talk about focusing on the pitch (the level of play has gone up ever year lately) but as a person who once took a buyout, surely you can understand the stress and pressure of financially maintaining a sports institution. Also, 'judgement's from afar' might not be appropriate unless you have proof (we have this guy here who goes around making stuff up and telling us to source his made up facts when he's caught, so we have to be a little skeptical).

-The only solution to your problem is FINDING these owners who want to pump their money into these problems first, instead of talking poorly of the current pool of investors under the assumption the better owners are waiting around the corner, and I'd honestly rather a few shaky operations stay afloat then trim like 50 - 80 roster spots nationwide (We don't even have the pre existing infrastructure for a destructive solution to make any sense, a good central solution would easily overwhelm pretty much everything but the MLS clubs).

It's kinda like breaking a few hundred pieces of lego structures hoping you'll have thousands of peices after, you'll need A LOT more 10$ ships to build a big ship if you can't afford a couple Megaships on their own and if you can get anything in the middle, take it and be happy. I always figured the most realistic solution is that if they can come up with 30 teams (excluding B teams) over 2 divisions they'll have to bring in promotion and relegation (especially if 'bigger' money owners with a lot of money to invest were stepping up, it cost's like $200 000 to buy like 10%...of the entire league). Then, the struggling teams will have real consequences (and a cheaper division to rebuild in)

[1996]

What this league should at the very least strive for is to be at least better competitively on the field than most or all of the local senior amatuer teams in your city or town you represent, a team like London City for example for the majority of years has not been the best mens team in the area. There have been a few local mens senior amateur teams in the area much better in quality than the so called pro team, which is not good. Never mind trying to compete in the CSL, most years this London City team would have a hard time getting wins in the top amateur mens team in London. This is another problem I have with the CSL, where there are a few teams in this league who can't seem to even attract the better players in the area or city they represent. If I'm a local player that wants to play the highest level of soccer in my area and there is a local CSL team in my city I should be wanting to play there, not with a local mens amateur team instead. The CSL team should be seen as stronger than any of the local mens amateur teams in the area they represent not weaker, as a team like London City is seen and a few other CSL teams are viewed. If the CSL wants to be taken more seriosly this perception needs to change with a few teams in this league.

[Juby]

What this league should at the very least strive for is to be at least better competitively on the field than most or all of the local senior amatuer teams in your city or town you represent, a team like London City for example for the majority of years has not been the best mens team in the area. There have been a few local mens senior amateur teams in the area much better in quality than the so called pro team, which is not good. Never mind trying to compete in the CSL, most years this London City team would have a hard time getting wins in the top amateur mens team in London. This is another problem I have with the CSL, where there are a few teams in this league who can't seem to even attract the better players in the area or city they represent. If I'm a local player that wants to play the highest level of soccer in my area and there is a local CSL team in my city I should be wanting to play there, not with a local mens amateur team instead. The CSL team should be seen as stronger than any of the local mens amateur teams in the area they represent not weaker, as a team like London City is seen and a few other CSL teams are viewed. If the CSL wants to be taken more seriosly this perception needs to change with a few teams in this league.

edit: sorry if this is a bit long, it's not pissy or anything though

Yes but this is pretty much only true for London city...

In the GTA, the CSL team are clearly the best non fully pro teams in the area. The level of play has been making huge leaps and bounds the last few years (you can find the games in this sub forum). They have been getting the best local talent as a league (very cheaply too, they 'out bid' amateur usually by offering a mere 5 000 annually)

Also, you should be aware, despite people sometimes trying to say different, the CSL is semi pro, so yes it should be better then amateur leagues but don't expect 'pro' standards.

Your problem is actually completely false if you look past London City (North York Astro's for example consistantly dig up great prospects, Grigore, Peregea, Whiteman etc.). The best CSL teams are built from scouting guys from poorer CSL teams and the best amateur leagues (which you listed as a problem? it's not outside of London). Look at some of the rosters for some other teams, you'll see some of them began in amateur leagues and the pdl and eventually jumped up to the CSL, the CSL also has a decent number of pro's returning home, foreign pro's too. A lot of the best players in the league probably would have retired at 22 if their were no CSL because their options would have been either the long shot of making one of 4 pro squads or not getting paid to play amateur soccer.

We're all aware London City has been a perennial loser, but are you really making a 'fair and balanced' judgement of the league when your looking at probably the worst team (currently in a state of flux mind you)? I understand if you live in London things might look different but the fact is, league wide, your problem is untrue, the CSL attracts better players then any other local mens team in the area. The problem I have is talking about the worst example like it's indicitive of everything is just misleading, it' like saying a coat is complete garbage for keeping you warm if it had a frayed corner.

I'm just curious, have you seen a say SC Toronto vs York Region Shooters type game last year, because if your watching more then London City, you know the league has been getting pretty good. Since your only talking about London City (worst case scenario a couple more teams are on that bottom end, not that bad though), isn't it a bit inappropriate to label your problems as 'problems with the CSL' if their all actually 'problems with London City'? Should I argue back by taking the best run team and pretending it's indicitive of the entire league? We have to look at the league as a whole to judge it as a whole, and even the idea of crapping on a few struggling teams seems a little wrong to me, we have no guarantees someone else is going to step up and replace 20-30 roster spots if we go around trying to ruin operations that aren't big enough for our liking

For a partial point you could probably say the CSL needs to come up with better ways to enforce standards, but the argument that we need bigger money to step up and out compete these guys into appropriate leagues is just as valid (you kinda have to take what you can get you've got more then a league of teams) and these both seem like excuses when you look at the responsibilities of the individual club (like parents assigning blame on everyone but themselves).